Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
D.6 ESTIMATING IMPACTS PER ELIGIBLE APPLICANT
In the body of the report, we focus on impacts per applicant for
the child and family outcomes, because these impact estimates are
more policy relevant and differ very little from the impacts per eligible
applicant. Tables D.6A through D.6N show the impacts per eligible
applicant for key outcome variables in order to illustrate how similar
the impact findings are to those based on applicants.
| Outcome |
Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact
Per Eligible Applicanta |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT | ||||
| Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) | 89.9 | 88.1 | 1.8*** | 13.3 |
| Percent with Bayley MDI Below 100 | 75.4 | 79.8 | -4.4** | 10.7 |
| Percent with Bayley MDI Below 85 | 34.6 | 40.2 | -5.6** | 11.5 |
| LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT | ||||
| MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI): Vocabulary Production Score | 56.2 | 53.9 | 2.4** | 10.5 |
| MacArthur CDI: Percent Combining Words | 80.5 | 77.5 | 2.9* | 7.0 |
| MacArthur CDI: Sentence Complexity Score | 8.6 | 7.7 | 0.9** | 11.3 |
| Sample Size | 1,021 | 1,092 | 2,113 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
aThe estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back)
bThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantc | Effect Sized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Engagement of Parente | 4.3 | 4.2 | 0.1 | 7.8 |
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Negativity toward Parente | 1.7 | 1.8 | -0.1 | -7.3 |
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Sustained Attention with Objectse | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.1 | 6.9 |
| Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS): Emotional Regulation in a Cognitive Taskf | 3.6 | 3.6 | 0 | -1.5 |
| Bayley BRS: Orientation / Engagement in a Cognitive Taskf | 3.6 | 3.6 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive | 9.9 | 10.5 | -0.5** | -9.5 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, and interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
cThe estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back)
dThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
eBehaviors are observed during the videotaped Parent-Child Structured Play task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back)
fBehaviors are observed during the Bayley assessment and rated on a five-point scale by the Interviewer/Assessor.(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control
Group |
Estimated
Impact Per Eligible Applicantg |
Effect Sizeh |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Emotional Responsivityi | 6.2 | 6.1 | 0.1* | 7.4 |
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Supportivenessj | 4.0 | 3.9 | 0.1*** | 13.3 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
gThe estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back)
hThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
iBehaviors are observed during the HOME assessment and rated on a yes/no scale by the Interviewer/Assessor.(back)
jBehaviors are observed during the videotaped Parent-Child Structured Play task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantk |
Effect
Sizel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Total Score | 26.5 | 26.1 | 0.4** | 9.8 |
| STRUCTURING
THE ENVIRONMENT |
||||
| HOME: Support of Cognitive, Language, and Literacy Environment | 10.3 | 10.1 | 0.2*** | 11.2 |
| Percentage of Parents Who Set a Regular Bedtime for Child | 61.0 | 56.2 | 4.8** | 9.7 |
| Percentage of Parents and Children Who Have Regular Bedtime Routines | 69.1 | 67.0 | 2.0 | 4.4 |
| PARENT-CHILD
ACTIVITIES |
||||
| Parent-Child Activities | 4.6 | 4.5 | 0.1** | 10.4 |
| Percentage of Parents Who Read to Child Every Day | 57.4 | 52.3 | 5.1** | 10.2 |
| Percentage of Parents Who Read to Child at Bedtime | 28.4 | 22.6 | 5.8*** | 13.7 |
| PARENT'S
VERBAL-SOCIAL SKILLS |
||||
| HOME: Maternal Verbal-Social Skillsm | 2.8 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 6.4 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
kThe estimated impact per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted means for all program and control group members.(back)
LThe effect size was calculated by dividing the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
mBehaviors are observed during the HOME assessment and rated on a yes/no scale by the Interviewer/Assessor.(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Outcome |
Program |
Control |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantn |
Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INSENSITIVITY |
||||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Detachmentp |
1.4 |
1.5 |
-0.1** |
-10.2 |
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Intrusivenessp |
1.9 |
1.9 |
0 |
-3.3 |
|
HOSTILITY AND PUNISHMENT |
||||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Negative Regardp |
1.5 |
1.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
| Home Observation of Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Absence of Punitive Interactionsq |
4.4 |
4.4 |
0 |
-3.7 |
| Percentage of Parents who Spanked the Child in the Previous Week |
48.1 |
52.5 |
-4.4** |
-8.9 |
| Sample Size |
1,092 |
1,021 |
2,113 |
|
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of parent-child interactions during videotaped, semi-structured
tasks conducted when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
nThe estimated impact
per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted
means for all program and control group members.(back)
oThe effect size was calculated by dividing
the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation
of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it
is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
pBehaviors are observed during the videotaped
Parent-Child Structured Play task and coded on a seven-point scale.(back)
qBehaviors are observed during the HOME assessment
and rated on a yes/no scale by the Interviewer/Assessor(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr | Effect Sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT |
||||
| Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory | 3.4 | 3.3 | 0.1*** | 11.1 |
|
DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES |
||||
| Percentage of Parents Who Suggested Responses to Hypothetical Situations with Child: | ||||
| Prevent or Distract | 72.1 | 66.7 | 5.3*** | 11.3 |
| Remove Child or Object | 80.5 | 81.3 | -0.8 | -2.0 |
| Talk and Explain | 37.4 | 31.5 | 5.9*** | 12.6 |
| Threaten or Command | 31.8 | 34.1 | -2.3 | -4.8 |
| Shout | 5.5 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| Physical Punishment | 27.4 | 29.9 | -2.5 | -5.5 |
| Percentage of Parents Suggesting Only Mild Responses to the Hypothetical Situationsr | 43.0 | 39.0 | 4.0* | 8.1 |
| Index of Severity of Discipline Strategies Suggesteds | 2.7 | 2.8 | -0.1* | -6.8 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Has Syrup of Ipecac in the House in Case of a Poison Emergency | 29.6 | 29.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Parent/Guardian Has or Knows How to Find the Telephone Number For the Poison Control Center | 37.3 | 35.7 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Family Uses a Gate or Door at the Top Of Stairs | 79.7 | 81.2 | -1.5 | -3.8 |
| Family Uses Guards or Gates For Windows | 62.7 | 64.7 | -1.9 | -4.0 |
| Family Has Covers on Electrical Outlets That Child Can Reach | 60.4 | 60.8 | -0.3 |
-0.7 |
| Family's Home Has Working Smoke Alarms | 86.6 | 84.8 | 1.8 | 5.1 |
| Family Uses a Car Seat For Child and it is in the Back Seat of the Car | 81.0 | 82.0 | -1.0 |
-2.7 |
| Interviewer Observed That Child's Play Area is Safe | 68.5 | 68.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
| Outcome |
Program |
Control |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr |
Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES |
||||
| Percentage of Parents Ever Employed or in an Education or Job Training Program |
85.0 |
82.5 |
2.5* |
6.5 |
| Average Hours Per Week Employed at All Jobs and in Any Education or Training |
20.1 |
19.7 |
0.4 |
2.6 |
| EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES |
||||
| Percentage of Parents Ever Employed |
72.5 |
71.9 |
0.6 |
1.3 |
| Average Hours Per Week Employed at All Jobs |
14.7 |
15.4 |
-0.7 |
-4.2 |
| EDUCATION ACTIVITIES |
||||
| Percentage of Parents Who Ever Participated in an Education or Training Program |
48.1 |
43.7 |
4.4** |
8.9 |
| Average Hours Per Week in an Education Program |
5.2 |
4.1 |
1.0*** |
13.4 |
| Sample Size |
1,139 |
1,097 |
2,236 |
|
SOURCE: Parent Services Follow-Up Interviews completed an average
of 7 and 16 months after random assignment.
| Outcome |
Program |
Control |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr |
Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TYPES OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES |
||||
| High School |
12.7 |
9.6 |
3.0*** |
10.4 |
| High School or Alternative |
13.2 |
11.2 |
2.0* |
6.4 |
| Adult Basic Education |
3.0 |
2.9 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
| English as a Second Language |
2.6 |
1.3 |
1.3** |
11.1 |
| GED Preparation |
7.2 |
6.8 |
0.3 |
1.3 |
| Any Vocational Education |
14.9 |
12.9 |
2.0 |
6.0 |
| 2-Year College |
7.4 |
6.8 |
0.6 |
2.4 |
| 4-Year College |
4.3 |
4.8 |
-0.5 |
-2.4 |
|
DEGREES AND CREDENTIALS RECEIVED |
||||
| Highest Grade Completed |
11.4 |
11.5 |
-0.1 |
-2.4 |
| GED Certificate |
9.8 |
9.7 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
| High School Diploma |
46.1 |
45.3 |
0.8 |
1.6 |
| Received a High School Degree or GED Between Enrollment and Second Follow-Up |
24.7 |
24.4 |
0.3 |
0.7 |
| Vocational, Business, or Secretarial Diploma |
15.4 |
14.8 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
| Associate's Degree |
3.1 |
3.6 |
-0.6 |
-3.0 |
| Bachelor's Degree |
3.1 |
4.0 |
-0.9 |
-4.5 |
| Sample Size |
1,139 |
1,097 |
2,236 |
|
SOURCE: Parent Services Follow-Up Interviews completed an average
of 7 and 16 months after random assignment.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr | Effect Sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Parents Who Received Any Welfare Benefits | 65.7 | 64.8 | 0.9 | 1.8 |
| Total Welfare Benefits Received ($) | 3,652.1 | 3,431.9 | 220.2 | 5.1 |
| Percentage of Parents Who Received AFDC or TANF Benefits | 45.0 | 43.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| Total AFDC Or TANF Benefits Received ($) | 1,524.3 | 1,465.3 | 59.0 | 2.5 |
| Average Total Food Stamp Benefits Received ($) | 1,308.5 | 1,288.5 | 20.0 | 1.3 |
| Sample Size | 1,139 | 1,097 | 2,236 |
SOURCE: Parent Services Follow-Up Interviews completed an average
of 7 and 16 months after random assignment.
| Outcome |
Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr |
Effect Sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Families With Income Above the Poverty Line at Second Follow-Up | 33.9 | 36.1 | -2.3 | -4.7 |
| Total Family Resources Scale | ||||
| First follow-up | 150.2 | 149.1 | 1.2 | 5.4 |
| Second follow-up | 153.1 | 152.3 | 0.9 | 4.4 |
| Sample Size | 1,139 | 1,097 | 2,236 |
SOURCE: Parent Services Follow-Up Interviews completed an average
of 7 and 16 months after random assignment.
| Outcome | Program Group |
Control Group |
Estimated Impact Per Eligible Applicantr | Effect Sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARENT'S PHYSICAL HEALTH | ||||
| Parent's Health Status | 3.5 | 3.5 | 0 | 2.4 |
| PARENT'S MENTAL HEALTH | ||||
| Parenting Stress Index (PSI): Parental Distress | 25.0 | 25.9 | -0.9** | -9.6 |
| PSI: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction | 17.0 | 17.4 | -0.5* | -7.5 |
| Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI): Major Depression (average probability) | 15.6 | 15.7 | -0.1 | -0.2 |
| FAMILY FUNCTIONING | ||||
| Family Environment Scale: Conflict | 1.7 | 1.7 | -0.1* | -9.2 |
| Sample Size | 1,092 | 1,021 | 2,113 | |
SOURCE: Parent interviews, child assessments, interviewer observations,
and assessments of semi-structured parent-child interactions conducted
when children were approximately 24 months old.
NOTE: All impact estimates were calculated using regression models, where each site was weighted equally.
rThe estimated impact
per eligible applicant is measured as the difference between the regression-adjusted
means for all program and control group members.(back)
sThe effect size was calculated by dividing
the estimated impact per eligible applicant by the standard deviation
of the outcome measure for the control group times 100 (that is, it
is the impact expressed as a percentage of the standard deviation).(back)
*Significantly different from zero at the .10
level, two-tailed test
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed
test.
| Center-Based Programs | Home-Based Programs | Mixed-Approach Programs | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome |
Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Applicantt | Effect Sizeu | Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Applicantt | Effect Sizeu | Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Appklicantt | Effect Sizeu |
||
|
CHILDREN'S COGNITIVE AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT |
||||||||||||||
| Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) |
89.0 | 86.6 | 2.5* | 18.3 | 91.4 | 90.4 | 1.0 | 7.3 | 88.2 | 86.8 | 1.4 | 10.5 | ||
| Percentage with Bayley MDI below 85***v |
36.3 | 45.5 | -9.2* | -18.9 | 31.6 | 32.4 | -0.9 | -1.8 | 38.2 | 44.8 | -6.6 | -13.6 | ||
| MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI): Vocabulary Production |
54.2 | 55.2 | -1.0 | -4.4 | 56.1 | 53.3 | 2.8* | 12.6 | 57.8 | 53.6 | 4.2** | 18.7 | ||
| MacArthur CDI: Sentence Complexity* |
8.4 | 8.7 | -0.3 | -3.2 | 8.3 | 7.7 | 0.6 | 7.9 | 9.2 | 7.0 | 2.2*** | 26.8 | ||
|
CHILDREN'S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT |
||||||||||||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior Problems |
9.4 | 10.3 | -0.9 | -16.9 | 10.4 | 10.4 | -0.1 | -1.3 | 9.8 | 10.7 | -0.8* | -15.1 | ||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Engagement of Parent |
4.4 | 4.4 | 0.0 | -3.7 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 0.3** | 22.2 | ||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Negativity Toward Parent |
1.8 | 1.8 | 0.0 | -1.5 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | -2.2 | 1.8 | 2.0 | -0.2* | -17.0 | ||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Child Sustained Attention with Objects |
5.0 | 5.1 | -0.1 | -10.7 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 0.2* | 17.5 | ||
|
CHILDREN'S HEALTH |
||||||||||||||
| Percentage of Children with Poor or Fair Health*** |
12.2 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 6.2 | 11.8 | 14.6 | -2.8 | -8.2 | 11.8 | 13.8 | -2.0 | -5.9 | ||
|
QUALITY OF THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AND PARENTING |
||||||||||||||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Parent Supportiveness |
4.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | -1.6 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 0.1* | 12.4 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 0.2** | 21.8 | ||
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Support of Cognitive, Language, and Literacy Environment* |
10.2 | 10.3 | -0.1 | -5.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 0.2* | 9.8 | 10.4 | 10.1 | 0.4*** | 20.6 | ||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Parent Detachment |
1.4 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 5.7 | 1.4 | 1.5 | -0.1* | -13.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | -0.2** | -16.6 | ||
| Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) |
3.3 | 3.4 | 0.0 | -3.7 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 0.1** | 15.1 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 0.1** | 14.8 | ||
|
PARENT'S MENTAL HEALTH AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING |
||||||||||||||
| Parenting Stress Index: Parental Distress |
25.3 | 24.9 | 0.4 | 4.3 | 25.2 | 26.2 | -1.0 | -10.1 | 24.4 | 26.4 | -2.0*** | -21.5 | ||
| Family Environment Scale: Conflict |
1.7 | 1.8 | 0.0 | -4.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 | -0.1 | -11.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | -6.7 | ||
|
PARENT'S PROGRESS TOWARD SELF-SUFFICIENCY |
||||||||||||||
| Percentage of Parents Ever in and Education or Training Program During the 15 Months after Random Assignment*** |
53.0 | 52.3 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 44.9 | 39.4 | 5.6** | 11.2 | 48.4 | 43.4 | 5.0 | 10.2 | ||
| Average Hours per Week Parents Participated in Education or Training During the 15 Months after Random Assignment |
6.6 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 14.6 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 1.1** | 14.7 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 1.0* | 12.6 | ||
| Sample Size |
||||||||||||||
| Parent Interview |
240 | 203 | 443 | 500 | 466 | 966 | 352 | 352 | 704 | |||||
| Bayley |
203 | 165 | 368 | 428 | 386 | 814 | 279 | 278 | 557 | |||||
| Parent-Child Interactions |
223 | 172 | 395 | 421 | 373 | 794 | 269 | 274 | 543 | |||||
| Parent Services Interview |
234 | 204 | 438 | 537 | 522 | 1,059 | 368 | 371 | 739 | |||||
| Early Implementers | Later Implementers | Incomplete Implementers | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Applicantt | Effect Sizeu | Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Applicantt | Effect Sizeu | Program Group | Control Group | Impact Estimate Per Eligible Appklicantt | Effect Sizeu |
||
| CHILDREN'S COGNITIVE AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT | ||||||||||||||
| Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) | 91.5 | 89.4 | 2.1* | 15.5 | 86.0 | 84.1 | 1.8* | 13.6 | 92.2 | 91.5 |
0.7 |
4.8 |
||
| Percentage with Bayley MDI below 85***c | 30.9 | 37.0 | -6.1 | -12.5 | 45.6 | 51.3 | -5.7 | -11.6 | 26.4 | 30.1 |
-3.7 |
-7.6 |
||
| MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI): Vocabulary Production | 60.2 | 56.2 | 4.0** | 17.7 | 52.4 | 51.3 | 1.2 | 5.2 | 56.0 | 54.1 |
1.9 |
8.4 |
||
| MacArthur CDI: Sentence Complexity | 10.0 | 8.6 | 1.5** | 18.1 | 7.1 | 6.2 | 0.9 | 11.2 | 8.7 | 8.5 |
0.2 |
2.0 |
||
| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT | ||||||||||||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior Problems | 9.2 | 10.5 | -1.3*** | -22.6 | 10.5 | 10.6 | 0.0 | -0.3 | 9.9 | 10.5 |
-0.5 |
-9.6 |
||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Engagement of Parent** | 4.6 | 4.4 | 0.2** | 18.0 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 0.2* | 13.4 | 4.1 | 4.2 |
-0.2 |
-13.6 |
||
| Parent-Child Structured Play: Negativity Toward Parent | 1.6 | 1.7 | -0.1 | -13.0 | 1.7 | 1.8 | -0.1 | -5.2 | ||||||